Which one of the choices, if true, would most weaken the following argument? $>>>>>$ When you install a burglar alarm in your home, you do so presumably because the cost of the alarm is less than the expected benefits. The cost of a burglary, if one occurs, is likely to be much higher than the cost of fitting an alarm. A clearly visible box on an outside wall of an alarmed house alerts and discourages potential thieves. Because your house is less likely to be burgled, your neighbour's house may be more vulnerable. Therefore, while there may be little impact on overall crime levels, expensive security devices reduce crimes against those with the devices but increase crimes against those without.

Your answer:

Burglars know that $25\%$ of all visible alarm boxes are fakes, but cannot tell the fake from the genuine.

As the percentage of houses with intruder alarms increased from $40\%$ to $90\%,$ house burglary rates fell by $60\%$ and there was a rise in street muggings of $100\%.$

For similar houses, a higher percentage of those without intruder alarms are burgled than those with alarms.

Burglars perceive an alarm as a signal that there are items well worth stealing in a house, while no alarm indicates less valuable contents.

Only $60\%$ of houses with alarms set the alarm every day.

Clear answer